Human Failure: An Analysis of 2000 Incident Reports

Author:

Williamson J. A.1,Webb R. K.1,Sellen A.2,Runciman W. B.1,Van Der Walt J. H.3

Affiliation:

1. ; Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia

2. ; MRC Applied Psychology Unit, Rank Xerox EuroPARC, 61 Regent Street, Cambridge CB2 1A United Kingdom

3. and Women's and Children's Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia

Abstract

Information of relevance to human failure was extracted from the first 2,000 incidents reported to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study (AIMS). All reports were searched for human factors amongst the “factors contributing”, “factors minimising”, and “suggested corrective strategies” categories, and these were classified according to the type of human error with which they were associated. In 83% of the reports elements of human error were scored by reporters. “Knowledge-based errors” contributed directly to about one-quarter of incidents; the outcome of one third of incidents was thought to have been minimised by prior experience or awareness of the potential problems, and in one fifth some strategy to improve knowledge was suggested. Correction of “rule-based errors” or provision of protocols or algorithms were thought, together, to have a potential impact on nearly half of all incidents. Failure to check equipment or the patient contributed to nearly one-quarter of all incidents, and inadequate crisis management contributed to a further I in 8. “Skill-based errors” (slips and lapses) were directly responsible for I in 10 of all incidents, and were thought to make an indirect contribution in up to one quarter. “Technical errors” were responsible for about 1 in 8 incidents. Analysing the relative contribution of each type of error for each type of problem allows the development of rational preventative strategies. Continued efforts must be made to improve the knowledge-base of anaesthetists, but AIMS has shown that there may also be much to gain from directing attention towards eliminating rule-based errors, for promoting the use of protocols, check-lists and crisis management algorithms, and improving anaesthetists’ insight into the factors contributing and circumstances in which slips and lapses may occur. Traditional patterns of behaviour in doctors may also make them more liable to certain types of human error; removing the onus for adhering to standards and approved work practices from the individual to the “system” may lead to more consistent application of the “best practice”.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine,Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cited by 149 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Critical incidents during anesthesia: prospective audit;BMC Anesthesiology;2023-06-14

2. Teamwork in surgical specialties: an evaluation;British Journal of Healthcare Management;2021-10-02

3. Anaesthesia and perioperative incident reporting systems: Opportunities and challenges;Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology;2021-05

4. Human-error-potential Estimation based on Wearable Biometric Sensors;Proceedings of the 13th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management;2021

5. Vigilance, Alarms, and Integrated Monitoring Systems;Anesthesia Equipment;2021

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3